Replying to LO30605 --
Dear LO'ers, dear Ray,
I have tried to comprehend your charts. They are indeed a bit complicated
and perhaps some indications of what you had in mind by chosing the topics
and criteria for ordering these might help me for a deeper understanding.
Let me tell you some of the thoughts which I had when studying these
charts. With the perception-chart, I was first wondering why you have used
the seemingly strict separations of the four quadrants. Is it not wise to
leave the diagonal border lines, or at least make them thinner or dashed?
For instance, I think that a perception of complexity (mentioned in the
left quadrant) is vital for the spiritual side (right hand quadrant).
However, I am not sure in which sense you have used the word 'spiritual'
('only' some sort of religion?). What I had in mind was the
multi-dimensionality of music (e.g. rhythm, various melodies of each
individual instrument, harmony). For me this is the best illustration of
complexity. And either conscious, or unconsciously, this complexity or
multi-dimensionality could be one of the most important conditions for the
'strings' that are touched in the body/mind of the listener of music.
Perhaps it is the educational side to open minds of listeners to recognise
consciously this multi-dimensionality. Even in the commercial music of
today's radiostations, one could immediately recognise the artists and
music which is still popular after 10 or 20 years. And it is always
because of a higher complexity than those one-day 'hits'. (think of e.g.
Beatles or Queen/ Freddy Mercury, or Frank Zappa as examples of the first
category). Of course, also 'taste' is important for appreciation, but one
can immediately recognise those artists who know to play there
instruments. It is like in the pictural arts. Even with painters which
have made paintings not in your taste, you still are able to recognise the
real artists.
The second chart is much more difficult to comprehend. I understand that
you try to illustrate an emergence or immergence after 1883, but I have no
idea what happened in that year. What I understood is that you try to
connect the evolution of music with the evolution in the society. If this
is so, perhaps the chart becomes more readable if the various evolutions
are indicated along several parallel time bars (from 1776 to 2003). And if
this is an idea, I am very curious if it is possible to introduce an extra
bar with scientific evolution. It is known that art and science are very
much related with each other and that they influence each other.
Ray, I see that you are full of ideas and insights. It is nice for a
non-connaisseur of this matter to snuffle on your knowledge.
Leo Minnigh
> [Host's Note: ...snip...
>
> Ray's charts are at
>
> http://www.learning-org.com/docs/LO30605_ViewsOfMusicWorld.jpg
> http://www.learning-org.com/docs/LO30605_FRAGMENTATION_CHARTc.jpg
> .. Rick]
--"leo minnigh" <minnigh@dds.nl>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.
